Good Friends/Kalyanamittas: A Personal Ad :dharmawheel:

[Gillian]

@SeriousFun136

How shall I contact you? By PM or will you PM me your email address?

Click on the N beside Nimal’s name, then click on the envelope icon with the word “Message” beside it in the top righthand corner of the newly opened window.

(This is the facilty we were referring to when we mentioned PM groups above. )

[karl_lew]

One might also find that keeping the company of sandpaper invariably smooths one. May all beings smooth each other with the brahmaviharas, which are limitless.

MN43:31.2: Firstly, a mendicant meditates spreading a heart full of love to one direction, and to the second, and to the third, and to the fourth. In the same way above, below, across, everywhere, all around, they spread a heart full of love to the whole world—abundant, expansive, limitless, free of enmity and ill will. They meditate spreading a heart full of compassion … They meditate spreading a heart full of rejoicing … They meditate spreading a heart full of equanimity to one direction, and to the second, and to the third, and to the fourth. In the same way above, below, across, everywhere, all around, they spread a heart full of equanimity to the whole world—abundant, expansive, limitless, free of enmity and ill will.

[SeriousFun136]

@Nimal

Please let me know via e mail how you understand dependent origination to start with.

I emailed you my current understanding of paṭiccasamuppāda.

@Nimal

For example, Dependent Origination is variously interpreted and each interpretation has its own supporters. So how can they become Kalyanamittas when they have differing interpretations on such core issues?

Due to this valid point, I copied and pasted my current (since I am still in the process of learning) understanding of paṭiccasamuppāda below too since it seems like a core issue that would be helpful to discuss in PM/by email with other potential kalyanamittas anyway.

Four Noble Truths
Problem: sadness (dukkha)
Cause: thirst (tanha)
End: extinguishment (nibbana)
Way to the End: way (magga)

Noble Eight-Limbed Way
Balanced View
Balanced Intention
Balanced Speech
Balanced Action
Balanced Livelihood
Balanced Effort
Balanced Memory
Balanced Concentration

Twelve Conditions of Conditional Occurrence
Misunderstanding
Formation(?)
(Sensory) Consciousness
Mind-and-Matter
(Sensory) Organ(/Base?)
Conjunction
Feeling
Thirst
Fuel(/Clinging?)
Becoming
Birth
Aging, Illness, Death, and the rest of Sadness (dukkha)

Brief explanation:
The Buddha seems to identify the cause of sadness (dukkha) to be thirst (tanha).
The two extreme ways of trying to quench thirst seems to be indulgence and deprivation.
The commonality between these two extremes are that they attempt to quench thirst directly.
The middle way that the Buddha claims actually quenches thirst is the Noble Eightfold Path.
The Noble Eightfold Path seems to lead to understanding (panna), which attempts to quench thirst indirectly by clarifying misunderstanding (avijjā), which in turn quenches thirsts (tanha), which in turn extinguishes sadness (dukkha).
This is the way in which I currently understand the concept of paṭiccasamuppāda.

[SeriousFun136]

@karl_lew

One might also find that keeping the company of sandpaper invariably smooths one.

Reminds me of:
76. Should one find a man who points out faults and who reproves, let him follow such a wise and sagacious person as one would a guide to hidden treasure. It is always better, and never worse, to cultivate such an association.
Dhp 76 Panditavagga: The Wise

@karl_lew

MN43:31.2: Firstly, a mendicant meditates spreading a heart full of love to one direction, and to the second, and to the third, and to the fourth. In the same way above, below, across, everywhere, all around, they spread a heart full of love to the whole world—abundant, expansive, limitless, free of enmity and ill will. They meditate spreading a heart full of compassion … They meditate spreading a heart full of rejoicing … They meditate spreading a heart full of equanimity to one direction, and to the second, and to the third, and to the fourth. In the same way above, below, across, everywhere, all around, they spread a heart full of equanimity to the whole world—abundant, expansive, limitless, free of enmity and ill will.

[ZenKen]

I tend to try and keep company with people who have good virtue, even if they aren’t Buddhist. Like there are a few people in my degree’s cohort who are generous, and so I try and hang out with them so they can rub off on me a bit. There are a lot of good people who aren’t Buddhist. Maybe one can’t ask them a meditation question or understanding a problem as impermanence or not-self, but they can help with some other parts of the path.

@karl_lew

keeping the company of sandpaper invariably smooths one

I do try and let a sandpaper-person smooth me out instead of scratch me too. There are plenty of those types!

[SeriousFun136]

Modified a relevant quote you posted on another thread:

@ZenKen

You should distinguish two kinds of people: those you should associate with, and those you shouldn’t associate with.’ That’s what I said, but why did I say it? Take a person of whom you know this: ‘When I associate with this person, unskillful qualities grow, and skillful qualities decline. And the necessities of life that a renunciate requires—robes, alms-food, lodgings, and medicines and supplies for the sick—are hard to come by. And the goal of the ascetic life for which I went forth from the lay life to homelessness is not being fully developed.’ In this case you should leave that person at that very time of the day or night, without asking. You shouldn’t follow them.

Take a person of whom you know this: ‘When I associate with this person, unskillful qualities grow, and skillful qualities decline. But the necessities of life that a renunciate requires—robes, alms-food, lodgings, and medicines and supplies for the sick—are easy to come by. However, the goal of the ascetic life for which I went forth from the lay life to homelessness is not being fully developed.’ In this case you should leave that person after reflecting, without asking. You shouldn’t follow them.

Take a person of whom you know this: ‘When I associate with this person, unskillful qualities decline, and skillful qualities grow. And the necessities of life that a renunciate requires—robes, alms-food, lodgings, and medicines and supplies for the sick—are hard to come by. But the goal of the ascetic life for which I went forth from the lay life to homelessness is being fully developed.’ In this case you should follow that person after reflection. You shouldn’t leave them.

Take a person of whom you know this: ‘When I associate with this person, unskillful qualities decline, and skillful qualities grow. And the necessities of life that a renunciate requires—robes, alms-food, lodgings, and medicines and supplies for the sick—are easy to come by. And the goal of the ascetic life for which I went forth from the lay life to homelessness is being fully developed.’ In this case you should follow that person. You shouldn’t leave them, even if they send you away. ‘You should distinguish two kinds of people: those you should associate with, and those you shouldn’t associate with.’ That’s what I said, and this is why I said it.

Association (AN 9.6)

[Nadine]

@ZenKen

like dry pina coladas and getting caught in the rain retreats.

Who are not into yoga and have half a brain?

[SeriousFun136]

www.newyorker.com/science/maria-konnikova/social-media-affect-math-dunbar-number-friendships/amp

• groups can extend to five hundred, the acquaintance level, and to fifteen hundred, the absolute limit—the people for whom you can put a name to a face.
• The best known, a hundred and fifty, is the number of people we call casual friends—the people, say, you’d invite to a large party. (In reality, it’s a range: a hundred at the low end and two hundred for the more social of us.)
• From there, through qualitative interviews coupled with analysis of experimental and survey data, Dunbar discovered that the number grows and decreases according to a precise formula, roughly a “rule of three.”
• The next step down, fifty, is the number of people we call close friends—perhaps the people you’d invite to a group dinner. You see them often, but not so much that you consider them to be true intimates.
• Then there’s the circle of fifteen: the friends that you can turn to for sympathy when you need it, the ones you can confide in about most things.
• The most intimate Dunbar number, five, is your close support group. These are your best friends (and often family members).
• While the group sizes are relatively stable, their composition can be fluid. Your five today may not be your five next week; people drift among layers and sometimes fall out of them altogether.

The main point: ideally, I would like to get to a point where almost all, if not all (whether it is 5, 15, 50, 150, 500, or 1,500) of my associates are relatively true kalyanamittas. I.e. try to find and sustain associations with those who are already committed to a study and practice of the Dhamma-Vinaya, independent of me.

I would like this because I think this would be most suitable, beneficial, and fruitful for me (and hopefully others too) in the long-run even though being able to develop such a group to such a degree seems extremely difficult.

[karl_lew]

@SeriousFun136

try to find and sustain associations with those who are already committed

One may also associate with the kalyanamitta in all of us. The Buddha in me bows to the Buddha in you. Knowledge of suffering is that first Noble Truth, the one that joins us all.

[SeriousFun136]

@karl_lew

Knowledge of suffering is that first Noble Truth, the one that joins us all.

Yes, a common enemy, the common problem.

@karl_lew

The Buddha in me bows to the Buddha in you.

How do you mean?

@karl_lew

One may also associate with the kalyanamitta in all of us.

I think I get what you mean, but I am not sure. Can you elaborate?

[karl_lew]

@SeriousFun136

elaborate

Good friends (Kalyāṇamitta) are the whole of the spiritual life.

SN3.18:4.3: Good friends, companions, and associates are the whole of the spiritual life.

Yet as we wear away greed, hate and delusion, we can’t really be greedy about spiritual friends. And it harms us to hate non-spiritual folks. And we certainly shouldn’t waste all our time deciding whether someone is worthy of spiritual friendship. So we end up with a bit of a quandary about how to relate to others.

This is where ethics steps in to aid and support us. MN8 goes into a lot of detail about ethics and lists 44 things to practice. Here are the first five:

MN8:12.2: ‘Others will be cruel, but here we will not be cruel.’
MN8:12.3: ‘Others will kill living creatures, but here we will not kill living creatures.’
MN8:12.4: ‘Others will steal, but here we will not steal.’
MN8:12.5: ‘Others will be unchaste, but here we will not be unchaste.’
MN8:12.6: ‘Others will lie, but here we will not lie.’

What’s remarkable about these 44 perspectives is their universality. It is the way we treat our spiritual friends and the whole world. Let the Buddha in me bow to the Buddha in you, the non-cruel in me bow to the non-cruel in you, the non-killer in me bow to the non-killer in you, etc. And in this gentle, deep manner, we treat all as our spiritual friends:

AN3.63:8.5: I meditate spreading a heart full of love to one direction, and to the second, and to the third, and to the fourth. In the same way above, below, across, everywhere, all around, I spread a heart full of love to the whole world—abundant, expansive, limitless, free of enmity and ill will.

In this way we practice the heart’s release by love, on the way to the third liberation and further…

SN46.54:12.8: The apex of the heart’s release by love is the beautiful, I say, for a mendicant who has not penetrated to a higher freedom.

[Viveka]

Beautifully said

@karl_lew

In this way we practice the heart’s release by love, on the way to the third liberation and further…

[Gillian]

@karl_lew

Yet as we wear away greed, hate and delusion, we can’t really be greedy about spiritual friends. And it harms us to hate non-spiritual folks. And we certainly shouldn’t waste all our time deciding whether someone is worthy of spiritual friendship.

Sadhu. Sadhu. Sadhu.
Everyone is worthy of our lovingkindness.

[SeriousFun136]

@karl_lew

One may also associate with the kalyanamitta in all of us.

Does this mean that everyone is a kalyannamitta?

@karl_lew

The Buddha in me bows to the Buddha in you.

Has the Buddha or Sangha used this kind of phrasing before? I am curious where this kind of phrasing comes from because I don’t think I have come across these in the early sources.

@karl_lew

we can’t really be greedy about spiritual friends.

What do you mean “greedy about spiritual friends”?
Is even looking for spiritual friends considered being greedy for them?
How can one find them if one does not look and search?

@karl_lew

And it harms us to hate non-spiritual folks.

I agree. Any form of hatred is harmful.

@karl_lew

And we certainly shouldn’t waste all our time deciding whether someone is worthy of spiritual friendship. So we end up with a bit of a quandary about how to relate to others.

It seems that the Buddha did advise beings to be discerning about evaluating whether someone is worthy of spiritual friendship in at least one place:

@anon87721581

These three people are found in the world. What three? There is a person you shouldn’t associate with, accompany, or attend. There is a person you should associate with, accompany, and attend.There is a person you should associate with, accompany, and attend with honor and respect.

Who is the person you shouldn’t associate with, accompany, or attend? It’s someone who is inferior in terms of ethics, immersion, and wisdom. You shouldn’t associate with, accompany, or attend such a person, except out of kindness and compassion.

Who is the person you should associate with, accompany, and attend? It’s someone who is similar in terms of ethics, immersion, and wisdom. You should associate with, accompany, and attend such a person. Why is that?Thinking, ‘Since our ethical conduct is similar, we can discuss ethics, the conversation will flow, and we’ll both be at ease. Since our immersion is similar, we can discuss immersion, the conversation will flow, and we’ll both be at ease. Since our wisdom is similar, we can discuss wisdom, the conversation will flow, and we’ll both be at ease.’ That’s why you should associate with, accompany, and attend such a person.

Who is the person you should associate with, accompany, and attend with honor and respect? It’s someone who is superior in terms of ethics, immersion, and wisdom. You should associate with, accompany, and attend such a person with honor and respect. Why is that?Thinking, ‘I’ll fulfill the entire spectrum of ethical conduct I haven’t yet fulfilled, or support with wisdom in every situation the ethical conduct I’ve already fulfilled. I’ll fulfill the entire spectrum of immersion I haven’t yet fulfilled, or support with wisdom in every situation the immersion I’ve already fulfilled. I’ll fulfill the entire spectrum of wisdom I haven’t yet fulfilled, or support with wisdom in every situation the wisdom I’ve already fulfilled.’ That’s why you should associate with, accompany, and attend this person with honor and respect.

These are the three people found in the world.

A man who associates with an inferior goes downhill,
but associating with an equal, you’ll never decline;
following the best, you’ll quickly rise up,
so you should keep company with people better than you.”
AN3.26

Thus, I wish wish to prioritize associating with beings in the following way:

1. superior to me in terms of mental development
2. similar to me in terms of mental development
3. inferior to me in terms of mental development

This does seem to require that I accurately assess both my own current level of mental development and assess the current level of mental development of others as well.

@karl_lew

MN8 goes into a lot of detail about ethics and lists 44 things to practice.

@karl_lew

What’s remarkable about these 44 perspectives is their universality.

I love this and totally agree. Thank you for sharing.

@karl_lew

It is the way we treat our spiritual friends and the whole world .

@karl_lew

we treat all as our spiritual friends

I am not sure if the definition that you are using here as spiritual friends (I agree with what you mean to say in terms of MN8) agrees with the way the Buddha used the term spiritual friends (such as in AN3.26) - the latter seems to encourage a significant degree of discernment in terms of choosing who to associate with.

I completely agree with developing metta and the rest of the brahmaviharas.

Another relevant thread:

What is a good person and what is a good friend?

In SN55.5 we get the line: “Sir, the factors of stream-entry are associating with good people, listening to the true teaching, proper attention, and practicing in line with the teaching.” “Sappurisasaṃsevo hi, bhante, sotāpattiyaṅgaṃ, saddhammassavanaṃ sotāpattiyaṅgaṃ, yonisomanasikāro sotāpattiyaṅgaṃ, dhammānudhammappaṭipatti sotāpattiyaṅgan”ti. So if seems that a factor of steam entry is ‘associating with good people’ (sappurisasaṃsevo). In SN45.2 we have the Buddha suggesting: Good fr…

@stu

In SN55.5 we get the line:

“Sir, the factors of stream-entry are associating with good people, listening to the true teaching, proper attention, and practicing in line with the teaching.”

“Sappurisasaṃsevo hi, bhante, sotāpattiyaṅgaṃ, saddhammassavanaṃ sotāpattiyaṅgaṃ, yonisomanasikāro sotāpattiyaṅgaṃ, dhammānudhammappaṭipatti sotāpattiyaṅgan”ti.

@stu

In SN45.2 we have the Buddha suggesting:

Good friends, companions, and associates are the whole of the spiritual life.

Sakalamevidaṃ, ānanda, brahmacariyaṃ, yadidaṃ—kalyāṇamittatā kalyāṇasahāyatā kalyāṇasampavaṅkatā.

@ZenKen

I take the example from the bamboo acrobat simile and apply it to friendships.

And how do you look after others by looking after yourself? By development, cultivation, and practice of meditation. And how do you look after yourself by looking after others? By acceptance, harmlessness, love, and sympathy.
Thinking ‘I’ll look after myself,’ you should cultivate mindfulness meditation. Thinking ‘I’ll look after others,’ you should cultivate mindfulness meditation. Looking after yourself, you look after others; and looking after others, you look after yourself.

@ZenKen

a whole list of things and ways to cultivate good qualities in MN 114 since it is shortened by ellipse I’ll put a copy from AN 9.6 on association here,

When I associate with this person, unskillful qualities decline, and skillful qualities grow.

@ZenKen

That means their attainments aren’t as important as much as the qualities that they promote in you, this can also be found in the Sigalaka Sutta (DN 31).

@stu

To compound my confusion, in MN8 we get a list of skillful qualities, and some of these seem quite exacting. Not the sort of qualities that we might expect from people who are puthujanna to be of help with, let alone non-Buddhists.

@stu

And then we later have the idea …

Truly, Cunda, if you’re sinking down in the mud you can’t pull out someone else who is also sinking down in the mud. But if you’re not sinking down in the mud you can pull out someone else who is sinking down in the mud. Truly, if you’re not tamed, trained, and extinguished you can’t tame, train, and extinguish someone else. But if you’re tamed, trained, and extinguished you can tame, train, and extinguish someone else.

So how can one realistically call oneself a kalyāṇamitta without at least the sotopanna attainment?

[karl_lew]

@SeriousFun136

Does this mean that everyone is a kalyannamitta ?

I haven’t met everyone. And my knowledge of those I have met is incomplete. Yet somehow I’ve noticed that in all people I have met there is always an openness of heart that can be shared.

@SeriousFun136

this kind of phrasing

I first heard this in the Zen Sangha decades ago. I understand that the brahmaviharas, by their very infinity of scope imply this.

@SeriousFun136

greedy about spiritual friends

We probably have all felt at one time or another ostracized by this or that spiritual group. The EBT quote is:

MN1:8.2: But then they identify with gods …

@anon87721581

It’s someone who is inferior in terms of ethics, immersion, and wisdom

I have learnt ethics, immersion, and wisdom from many people that others would avoid. It was at times perhaps not what they were trying to teach me, but I did learn. And I am quite grateful for all the lessons they taught me. Even a rock taught me how to be a better person. That rock was a spiritual friend.

[SeriousFun136]

@karl_lew

Yet somehow I’ve noticed that in all people I have met there is always an openness of heart that can be shared.

Would “openness of heart” be the criteria to determine who is and isn’t a kalyannamitta?

@karl_lew

I first heard this in the Zen Sangha decades ago.

Thank you letting me know.

@karl_lew

I understand that the brahmaviharas, by their very infinity of scope imply this.

Imply what exactly?

@karl_lew

We probably have all felt at one time or another ostracized by this or that spiritual group.

How do you mean? How the point about ostracism relevant to the question about whether merely looking for spiritual friends is considered being greedy for spiritual friends?

@karl_lew

I have learnt ethics, immersion, and wisdom from many people that others would avoid. It was at times perhaps not what they were trying to teach me, but I did learn. And I am quite grateful for all the lessons they taught me.

So would that imply that the Buddha was wrong to advise us not to associate with those who are inferior to us “in terms of ethics, immersion, and wisdom” or “mental development,” etc.?
Or maybe is it possible to learn from others who are “inferior to us” without say, associating with them, except out of compassion as stated in the discourse?

@karl_lew

Even a rock taught me how to be a better person.

How?

@karl_lew

That rock was a spiritual friend.

What definition or criteria do you use to determine who is and isn’t a spiritual friend?

[karl_lew]

@SeriousFun136

What definition or criteria do you use to determine who is and isn’t a spiritual friend?

Anybody who helps me practice MN8 is a spiritual friend. For example, as a rock climber, the rock was a spiritual friend who helped me deal with restlessness:

MN8:12.23: ‘Others will be restless, but here we will not be restless.’

Being restless on a rock is deadly. If you watch Alex Honnold climb without a rope, this is clear. In this way the rock was my constant spiritual teacher for decades. The rock taught me how to move with my breath and be mindful and attentive. And that is why I bow to the rock every time I climb.

Spiritual friends are those that help us progress on the Noble Eightfold Path. The more I look for them, the more I see and the more I learn. The deepest lesson in all of that was humility. Because whenever I tried to avoid someone as being unworthy of spiritual friendship, I was proven wrong and eventually learned much from them.

MN8:12.28: ‘Others will be contemptuous, but here we will be without contempt.’

[ZenKen]

@karl_lew

Because whenever I tried to avoid someone as being unworthy of spiritual friendship, I was proven wrong and eventually learned much from them.

I also think that the focus on finding the “perfect kalyanamitta” runs the risk of being a bad friend even as defined by the Buddha:

SuttaCentral DN 31
You can recognize a fake friend who’s all take on four grounds.

Your possessions end up theirs.
Giving little, they expect a lot.
They do their duty out of fear.
They associate for their own advantage.

If you believe someone is more attained than you and associate with them for your advantage, to progress along the path, rather than just to enjoy their company then your intention may be off. You may want them to save you rather be an example and support your practice (you also support theirs the best you can). I don’t remember the sutta saying that nobody can enlighten another person because it takes personal effort. For this reason I’m extremely wary of a narrow definition of kalyanmitta and a narrow definition of who qualifies, because it can get very exclusive very quickly and that doesn’t seem effective for progress as intended.

[SeriousFun136]

@karl_lew

Anybody who helps me practice MN8 is a spiritual friend.

@karl_lew

Spiritual friends are those that help us progress on the Noble Eightfold Path.

These two seem in accordance with the Dhamma-Vinaya.

@karl_lew

For example, as a rock climber,

Thank you for taking the time to explain your perspective.

@karl_lew

The deepest lesson in all of that was humility. Because whenever I tried to avoid someone as being unworthy of spiritual friendship, I was proven wrong and eventually learned much from them.

MN8:12.28: ‘Others will be contemptuous, but here we will be without contempt.’

@anon87721581

Who is the person you shouldn’t associate with, accompany, or attend?
It’s someone who is inferior in terms of ethics, immersion, and wisdom.
You shouldn’t associate with, accompany, or attend such a person, except out of kindness and compassion.

How do you reconcile what you said about “deeming someone unworthy of spiritual friendship”/“contempt” with what the Buddha seems to say to explicitly discourage associating with those who are inferior to oneself “in terms of ethics, immersion, and wisdom”?
These two seem contradictory.

@ZenKen

I also think that the focus on finding the “perfect kalyanamitta” runs the risk of being a bad friend even as defined by the Buddha:

SuttaCentral DN 31
You can recognize a fake friend who’s all take on four grounds.

Your possessions end up theirs.
Giving little, they expect a lot.
They do their duty out of fear.
They associate for their own advantage.

If you believe someone is more attained than you and associate with them for your advantage, to progress along the path, rather than just to enjoy their company then your intention may be off. You may want them to save you rather be an example and support your practice (you also support theirs the best you can). I don’t remember the sutta saying that nobody can enlighten another person because it takes personal effort. For this reason I’m extremely wary of a narrow definition of kalyanmitta and a narrow definition of who qualifies, because it can get very exclusive very quickly and that doesn’t seem effective for progress as intended.

@anon87721581

Who is the person you should associate with, accompany, and attend with honor and respect?
It’s someone who is superior in terms of ethics, immersion, and wisdom.
You should associate with, accompany, and attend such a person with honor and respect.
Why is that?
Thinking, ‘I’ll fulfill the entire spectrum of ethical conduct I haven’t yet fulfilled, or support with wisdom in every situation the ethical conduct I’ve already fulfilled. I’ll fulfill the entire spectrum of immersion I haven’t yet fulfilled, or support with wisdom in every situation the immersion I’ve already fulfilled. I’ll fulfill the entire spectrum of wisdom I haven’t yet fulfilled, or support with wisdom in every situation the wisdom I’ve already fulfilled.’
That’s why you should associate with, accompany, and attend this person with honor and respect.

How do you reconcile what you said about “if you believe someone is more attained than you and associate with them for your advantage, to progress along the path,” with what the Buddha seems to say to explicitly encourage associating with those who are superior to oneself “in terms of ethics, immersion, and wisdom”?
These two seem contradictory.

@ZenKen

For this reason I’m extremely wary of a narrow definition of kalyanmitta and a narrow definition of who qualifies, because it can get very exclusive very quickly and that doesn’t seem effective for progress as intended.

I am neither interested in a narrow, exclusive criterion nor a wide, inclusive criterion.
I am interested in figuring out what criterion the Buddha himself provided in the Dhamma-Vinaya and how one can actually use that criterion to find actual kalyanamittas in real life.
Without a proper, accurate, and clear understanding of what a kalyanamittas even is or who it is suitable for one to associate with, how can one set out to consciously, intentionally, and proactively search for suitable beings in accordance with the instructions provided by the Buddha in the Dhamma-Vinaya?

[stu]

@ZenKen

If you believe someone is more attained than you and associate with them for your advantage, to progress along the path, rather than …

That is going to be a bit of a shock for the entire monastic system

But to be a little more serious…This seems contrary to the way the path works to me. Any progress you make along the path benefits all sentient beings in your sphere of influence. There can be nothing selfish about progressing on the path. There is never an individual advantage at the expense of someone else when progressing on the path. From the first precept all the way to Awakening, there is a benefit for all in taking up and progressing the path. And if your kalyanamitta is realised, they will let you tag along out of compassion and kindness.